(By COLLEEN CURRY | ABC News) The New Mexico teenager who used an assault rifle to kill his mother, father and younger siblings told police he hoped to shoot up a Walmart after the family rampage and cause "mass destruction." ...

The shooting spree began shortly around 1 a.m. on Sunday, when Griego snuck into his parents' bedroom while his mother, Sara Griego, was asleep. There he raided the closet where the family kept their guns, and immediately used a .22 rifle to kill her, according to the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department.

More guns in the home. That's the answer to the dilemma that faces America today.

-Perhaps the NRA should suggest that parents always be armed to protect themselves from their children.
-Maybe armed guards in the home are the answer. It would certainly reduce the unemployment problem.

Just more 18th century thinking... more guns... we need an active militia because we have no army to protect us from the king ... and we have to save our slaves from freedom....

So 1791.

I'll be glad when that particular amendment is repealed (there have to be enough sane people left the in the country if it goes to a referendum). Hmm.... maybe not. Most Americans don't trust their own government any more than they trust their neighbors.

Something seriously wrong with that culture.
...
Should people have the ability to own guns = sure. They have enough legitimate uses but there need to be sufficient safeguards in place to protect the public at large.

Do they need a "right to bear arms" = no - this isn't 1791 or the 1800's wild west any more.

Gee, thanks for your "opinion" on the matter tthompatz. Like anyone cares.

Funny how you're all bluster, but no facts or logic to back up anything you say. Except for the laughable falsehoods you posted in the last thread (claiming that the US had a higher murder rate than even Mexico or Brazil and that "thousands of children are shot to death in the US every year", i.e. complete and utter hogwash).

Just more 18th century thinking... more guns... we need an active militia because we have no army to protect us from the king ... and we have to save our slaves from freedom....

So 1791.

Mr. Patz, I find your positions regarding the 2nd Amendment and concern Americans have over a tyrannical government to be lacking in scope of history and intellectually lazy.

As I laid out in the other thread, the American people had a very good reason for inserting that clause into their Constitution. As that clause is part of the Bill of Rights, the act of repealing it would be a SIGNIFICANT precedent. The other rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights include the Freedom of Speech, Protection against Illegal Search and Seizure, Due Process, Right to an Attorney, and others. Repealing one would be interpreted as an attack on the other 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights. By ensuring the sanctity of the 2nd Amendment you also empower the other 9 Amendments and the Bill of Rights as a whole.

The militia system may or may not be antiquated. Guns are a serious problem in America, but I cannot in any way, shape, or form, advocate overturning the 2nd Amendment for precisely the reason that to do so would jeopardize the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights and if a government were to go after those other 9, that WOULD constitute a tyrannical regime and would necessitate revolution.

This isn't about guns and militias- It's about the sanctity of the Bill of Rights as a whole.

Quote:

So 1791.

I am also distressed at your scope of history. For the last 220 years, America has been, through all of its faults, a stable democracy devoid of the worst excesses of tyranny. You do realize, that outside of Canada, perhaps a few small states, that that makes America largely unique.

Russia, France, Germany, England (I'd submit that the colonial exploitation of others at the scale of the English warranted the overthrow of their government), Italy, Spain, Norway, Turkey, Persia, China, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, S. Africa, on and on and on have had a brutal or overly corrupt regime in place within the last 100 years that deserved expulsion or has faced imminent invasion necessitating the mass arming of the populace or indeed the populace becoming partisans.

To suggest that the idea that a nation's government could become corrupt, even a democratic one, is to ignore the lessons of history. It is to believe that, in the case of most of these country's case, the last 40 years are the norm and the previous 2000 are the exception. Frankly, that is not a bet I would wish to wager when the stakes are the lives and liberty of the people. To believe that the natural state of man is to be fair and just, rather than to be consumed by lusts for power and wealth, is to be willfully ignorant of the humanity's existence.

Have times changed? Is the specter of war and tyranny significantly reduced? It appears so. But that does not make those that fear its return paranoid savages. Those concerns are reasonable and deserve to be carefully considered when weighing policy in regards to the right to bear arms.

Quote:

Something seriously wrong with that culture.

American culture has its faults, for sure, but let us not forget that it was Americans who enabled the liberation of Western Europe. It was Americans who supplied the wealth and resources necessary to rebuild the countries after WWII. America, and America alone possessed the capability to deter Soviet aggression. It is America's North American Defense (an extension of its Monroe Doctrine) that enabled Canada to enjoy defense without having to invest excessive energies into its military. It is that Monroe doctrine which enabled independence in the Western hemisphere and prevent excessive foreign (European) meddling in the affairs of Latin American nations. Finally, it is America that enabled us to be here in this country, working as English teachers. No other country in the Americas or Europe had the capacity, will, and resources to ensure the independence of South Korea. You sir, owe your job to America and its culture.

If there is a culture I have a problem with Mr. Patz, it is your culture, specifically that of a public armed drive-by-opinions, ignorant of history, small in scale in its thinking (for example, regarding 40 years past as 'a long time ago'), intellectually lazy in researching and learning about causes and the past, valuing arguing rather than debating, more concerned with its opinion rather than explanations, one that claims to be rational, but commits the most basic failure of reasoning and states an opinion first and then proceeds to research and prove backward, driven by quick slogans and hyperbolic statements, a complete and utter disappointment to the generations that have preceded who laid the educational and intellectual groundwork that should be taken advantage of. This culture has no nationality, but it is rampant and it is despicable. I would strongly urge you to cease being a participant in that culture and to rediscover the joy of learning and debating, rather than the cheap thrills of stat-posting and blasting.

Actually, I largely agree with your position but unfortunately I also do believe that as sacrosanct as the constitution is to most Americans there is room for change (else how did those amendments come to pass in the first place).

The "right to bear arms" had its place and its day. I think that day has since come and gone and since the constitution is amendable it is time to look at that sacred cow in light of the modern era.

Should the constitution be amended willy-nilly in the heat of the moment? Clearly the answer is no but I think a case can be made for the repeal or change to the 2nd amendment and I am of the opinion that a is a large enough majority of Americans (66% required for a constitutional change) who do think that gun laws need to be seriously looked at in that light.

I apologize for offending you with the hyperbole offered earlier in this and the other thread. Perhaps if enough other people can become so engaged a change can be effected in a timely fashion and protect those thousands who would otherwise die in the next few years of gunshot injuries.

I would also like to add that gun control is not a negation of the "right to bear arms" (although I personally think that scared cow should be shot) but a legitimate control of arms and ammunition acquisition and transport by appropriately chosen bodies (or do the people think that the government is too dangerous to entrust such control to?).

Whether and how to effect the change need to be debated. The why has been pretty clear.

Instead of repealing the 2nd amendment perhaps amend it by adding the federal responsibility of confirming the suitability (no history of mental illness or violent crime) and issuing a "firearms acquisition certificate" that needs to be renewed periodically with updated checks. No certificate = no gun or ammunition purchase or transport.

The change is simple enough. The intent is clear enough. The restriction and prohibition are adequately clear.

They do it for driving why not gun ownership and use. Driving a 2-ton lethal weapon is a privilege. Why not acquiring owning and/or using a gun?

Tom has done TONS for people on this forum - helped out a swack of people in different sections of this forum.

The most I've ever seen you do is bully and (attempt to) belittle people.

So yeah, if we were to have a poll choosing between the two of you on this forum, I'm guessing Tom would be very much appreciated.

Yeah, and your imaginary role as "arbiter" on this forum is also very much appreciated (not). The amount of peoples' time you waste on here with your inane commentary (that contributes zero insight to anything ever) should be a bannable offense.

As for ttompatz, I couldn't care less about him, except insofar as his hateful comments about Americans deserve to be called out for what they are (and he deserves all the mockery he can get for making demonstrably bogus claims). As others have pointed out, if he had said the same things, and substituted Korea (or any other country) for what he said about the US, he'd probably be banned.

As for ttompatz, I couldn't care less about him, except insofar as his hateful comments about Americans deserve to be called out for what they are (and he deserves all the mockery he can get for making demonstrably bogus claims). As others have pointed out, if he had said the same things, and substituted Korea (or any other country) for what he said about the US, he'd probably be banned.

And as is too common among your ilk and far too many other "nationalistic" Americans - attack the poster and not the post seems to be the best you can do - speaking of which - wasn't that one of your biggest complaints about Koreans - overly nationalistic?.

At least Steelrails said something worthy of a legitimate reply to.

Yours was what/where?

I'll take my chances in the forum and I also have no problem taking pot shots at the stupidity of Brits or Canadians either. Foolish laws, golden idols and sacred cows deserve to be knocked down where ever they exist.

AND I am curious....

visitorq wrote:

... for the US gov't to use an excuse to take away our liberties...

If you feel that way about your own government/country, why are you so intent on defending the status quo rather than making changes?

.

Last edited by ttompatz on Wed Jan 23, 2013 2:20 am; edited 1 time in total

Russia, France, Germany, England (I'd submit that the colonial exploitation of others at the scale of the English warranted the overthrow of their government), Italy, Spain, Norway, Turkey, Persia, China, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, S. Africa, on and on and on have had a brutal or overly corrupt regime in place within the last 100 years that deserved expulsion or has faced imminent invasion necessitating the mass arming of the populace or indeed the populace becoming partisans.

And yet people like ttompatz believe that America's astute citizenry are uniquely capable of electing benevolent leaders. Clearly the wisdom and observant nature of the American public will prevent us from making an electoral mistake like the Germans did a while back. No... Americans' solid grasp of history and inherent superiority in decision making prevent us from making the mistakes that almost every other country has since the beginning of civilization.

Come on Steelrails. When you look at the American media and culture, aren't you filled with an overwhelming sense that all of these people know what they're doing? Isn't it clear that the average citizen is level-headed and clear-thinking enough to see through the lies of a potential dictator?

All these non-Americans are chiming in about how silly it is to think that the U.S. would experience an invasion or revolution are simply stating the obvious: That Americans have much better judgement than the Russians, French, Germans, English, Italians, Spanish, Norwegians, Turks, Persians, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Mexicans, Brazilians, Argentinians, South Africans, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Ugandans, etc. How could you possibly look at the average American and disagree with that?

Either the country is safe and the government can be trusted to govern by the people/for the people and is a stable democracy OR it is not safe, people need to be armed, militias formed and the populace protected from themselves and their government.